Comparing Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King on Unjust Laws Essay

In to daylights society, it is often indecipherable where to draw the line between effective morals and effective government. It is for this reason that many measures, laws that argon enacted for the good of the people can be in direct conflict with a persons conscience. collect to the various struggles that the United States has faced in building a government, this topic has been a popular backchat throughout American literature. Although they did not live during the same time, American writers Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther tabby, Jr. ach wrote about how a person should not follow laws that they believe to be immoral.Thoreaus main c formerlyrn pertained to the legal public of slaves and slave-owners, and a century later, King spoke out against legal segregation in the South. In his garner from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. shares the same attitude with Henry David Thoreaus work, Civil Disobedience concerning just and unjust laws however, they apiece had d ifferent means of executing their beliefs. Both men agree that if a law is unjust, it is ones duty to break that law, and do instead what they believe to be right.Thoreau considers that when unjust laws exist, a person has cardinal choices of action obey them, obey them while working to change them, or transgress them at once. He proposes, It is not a mans dutyto devote himself to the eradication ofeven the most massive wrong but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, andnot to give it practically his support. (Thoreau 4). Thoreau also ponders whether it is break away to decide what is right and wrong by ones own conscience. He declares, It is not plummy to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.The only obligation which I hold in a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. (Thoreau 1). King, who was a costly clergyman, places ones moral obligations under the eyes of God. He defines a just law as a man-made code that squares wit h thelaw of God. (King 177). King and Thoreau believe that the act of going against the law should be done in a static manner. King explains, Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such(prenominal)(prenominal) a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is laboured to confront the issue. (175).These writers also coincide that once someone has broken a law, he or she must be willing to accept the consequences, including the possible penalty of imprisonment. In fact, both men spent time in prison for their acts of civil disobedience. Thoreau was sent to jail after six years of refusing to pay his taxes, due(p) to his opposition to both the Mexican-American War and slavery in America. King was sent to jail for leading several(prenominal) peaceful protests, including a boycott. However, King was imprisoned for much longer than Thoreau, who only spent one day in prison, but was unwillingly bailed out by his aunt.In fact, it was fr om jail that King wrote his letter, in an private road to defend his actions in Birmingham, which he believed to be completely necessary and justifiable actions of protest. Both Thoreau and King snarl that by going to prison, and dealing with the consequences of their actions, they were solidifying and therefore strengthening their protests. Thoreau and King were also of the same hear that a law must be respected regardless of whether it is just or unjust. King fears that insubordination will result if laws are not respected Thoreau describes that rebellion will be the consequence if laws are not given respect.King declares, An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in truth expressing the very highest respect for the law. (King 179). King states his position as one that disagrees with a law, and therefore goes against it in a n fret to change it with respect to the government. Both writers agree that getting rid of the government is not the goal, but quite to change its ways.Thoreau articulates, to speak practically and as a citizenI ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man trifle known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. (Thoreau 1). Exercising passive resistance is the basis of the title of Thoreaus work, and King presents several examples of civil disobedience in his letter, such as the Boston Tea Party. King himself not only exercises passive resistance, but he provides the action to be followed for any nonviolent campaign.With the exception of Kings added religious beliefs, Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr. overlap the same ideas concerning civil disobedience and the ways in which one should deal with just and unjust laws, although they exhibit their viewpoints in different wa ys. Both of these writers believed that any law that was in conflict with a persons conscience should be respected, but still challenged in a passive manner. To prove this belief, both Thoreau and King practiced it themselves.